Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 12, 2011, 09:14:05 AM
-
Gallup: Today’s Democrats Twice as Likely as Depression-Era Americans to Favor Redistributing...
CNSNews ^ | April 15, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey
Complete title: Gallup: Today’s Democrats Twice as Likely as Depression-Era Americans to Favor Redistributing Wealth
(CNSNews.com) - Democrats in America today are twice as likely as Americans in the Great Depression era to favor imposing heavy taxes on the rich as a means of redistributing wealth, according to data published today by the Gallup poll.
A Gallup poll conducted April 7-11, in the lead-up to the annual deadline for filing federal tax returns, showed that 71 percent of Democrats believe the government should use heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth. In 1939, after ten years of the Great Depression, only 35 percent of all Americans believed government should do that.
In the April 11-17 survey, Gallup asked more than 1,000 American adults: “People feel differently about how far a government should go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some don’t. Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?”
71 percent of Democrats told Gallup the government should impose heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth and 26 percent said the government should not. By contrast, only 28 percent of Republicans said the government should impose heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while 69 percent said the government should not.
Overall, in the April 7-11 Gallup survey, 47 percent of Americans said government should impose heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth while 49 percent said the government should not.
According to Gallup, back in March 1939, after a decade of the Great Depression, the Roper poll conducted a survey for Fortune Magazine asking the same question. At that time, only 35 percent of Americans believed government should impose heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth while 54 percent said government should not.
Although public support for taxing the rich to redistribute wealth is higher today than it was in 1939, it is a bit lower than it was at the beginning of the Obama presidency.
When Gallup asked the question in a survey conducted March 27-29, 2009, two months after Obama’s inauguration, 50 percent said they favored heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth while 46 percent said they did not.
On Wednesday, Obama delivered a speech outlining his plan for dealing with the national debt and calling for higher taxes on wealthier Americans. The Gallup survey on taxing the rich was completed two days before the president’s speech.
________________________ ______________________
47% pay zero taxes. what a coincidence.
Being a democrat = being a commie pofs in 2011.
Sad but true.
-
It all has to do with class warfare and buying votes.
-
the rich are richer today in comparison to the average worker than in 1939. I didn't see "socialist" "marxist" or "communist" in that article.
-
the rich are richer today in comparison to the average worker than in 1939. I didn't see "socialist" "marxist" or "communist" in that article.
Top 1% are paying about 38% or better of all federal tax receipts. how much is enough for you?
-
Top 1% are paying about 38% or better of all federal tax receipts. how much is enough for you?
what about in proportion to their income?
-
what about in proportion to their income?
Its probably the same - is that enough?
-
Somethings wrong with that... Top 1 % paying 38%..
My brother, who isn't Michael Dell or Michael Jordan rich, but pretty wealthy by most standards, has a saying.... if you have a corporation and pay taxes, you're not taking advantage of all the legal loop holes.
That may be a simplified statement, but it probably isn't too far from the truth.
-
I didn't see "socialist" "marxist" or "communist" in that article.
+1
-
+1
Don't need a label, the result from gallup speaks it itself.
-
Don't need reality either I see as your delusions speak for themselves.
-
Don't need reality either I see as your delusions speak for themselves.
+1
-
+1
::) ::)
Right because when 70% or better of a party believes in stealing others' money to fund their failed bullshit, its an example of free market capitalism.
-
You basically just post to talk to yourself don't you? In real life, just like on here, no one ever listens to you for very long. Before growing bored with the nonstop whining and lying. So you just post online ALL DAY LONG to give the voices in your head an outlet.
Being a self loathing sociopath with queer tendencies has got to be a heavy burden to carry day in and day out.
-
You basically just post to talk to yourself don't you? In real life, just like on here, no one ever listens to you for very long. Before growing bored with the nonstop whining and lying. So you just post online ALL DAY LONG to give the voices in your head an outlet.
Being a self loathing sociopath with queer tendencies has got to be a heavy burden to carry day in and day out.
You are what you are - seek help. Maybe Bachmann's husband can help you.
-
+1
Congrats magoo. You've aligned yourself with one of the dumbest posters here. His only existence is to stalk 333......
-
::) ::)
Right because when 70% or better of a party believes in stealing others' money to fund their failed bullshit, its an example of free market capitalism.
link?
-
Congrats magoo. You've aligned yourself with one of the dumbest posters here. His only existence is to stalk 333......
Can't be more stupid than your dumb ass. Trying to defend a habitual liar and fraud.
Good job. Keep trying though.
-
Can't be more stupid than your dumb ass. Trying to defend a habitual liar and fraud.
Good job. Keep trying though.
LMFAO. Bro - isnt there a gay bar in south florida waiting for you?
-
Congrats magoo. You've aligned yourself with one of the dumbest posters here. His only existence is to stalk 333......
Lurker was right in his post that i replied +1 to.
I find it odd that people like 3333 and MCWAY claim there is evidence to back up their claims, but when you show there is in fact no evidence to back up their claim (or that they are misinterpreting evidence), they denounce evidence and rely on personal experience instead. Or they denounce logic as "semantics".
In all seriousness, what can be said to a person like that? ???
-
Lurker was right in his post that i replied +1 to.
I find it odd that people like 3333 and MCWAY claim there is evidence to back up their claims, but when you show there is in fact no evidence to back up their claim (or that they are misinterpreting evidence), they denounce evidence and rely on personal experience instead. Or they denounce logic as "semantics".
In all seriousness, what can be said to a person like that? ???
Gallup did a poll to where 71% of democrats believe in redistribution of wealth by the govt. What do you call that?
-
LMFAO. Bro - isnt there a gay bar in south florida waiting for you?
Is there any reason you are gay obsessed? Projections are a bitch when you can't handle them right? Hate to inform and disappoint you, but I am not gay. If I were, I still would not be available to you as I would be attracted to men. Which the very definition of would disqualify you based on your whining, crying and acting like a sissy on her period.
-
Gallup did a poll to where 71% of democrats believe in redistribution of wealth by the govt. What do you call that?
What do i call it? I call it a feeling amongst registered democrats (assuming the poll was conducted properly) that the wealthy don't 100% deserve the full fruits of their labor. Notice how it wasn't necessary to call them marxists? ::)
Even Robert Nozick (the father of libertarianism) allowed redistribution of wealth by the government if the original distribution was not a just and fair distribution (such as resulting from an original equal distribution). If the father of libertarianism says that it is permissible for the government to redistribute wealth, what does that say about people who claim to follow libertarianism but say that the government has no right whatsoever to redistribute wealth.
-
Lurker was right in his post that i replied +1 to.
I find it odd that people like 3333 and MCWAY claim there is evidence to back up their claims, but when you show there is in fact no evidence to back up their claim (or that they are misinterpreting evidence), they denounce evidence and rely on personal experience instead. Or they denounce logic as "semantics".
In all seriousness, what can be said to a person like that? ???
You can not argue or debate with an idiot who has been at an impasse with reality all their lives.
I like the way they claim evidence exists to back up their whining, but when challenged to present it they don't. Or they attempt to twist opinions, conspiracy theories, and plain old bullshit into something resembling "facts".
And the little board sissy here tries to pass himself off as a lawyer and yet clearly doesn't know that facts, proof, and evidence is. Maybe he is a lawyer for clown court.
-
His only existence is to stalk 333......
That's pretty much true. At least the posts I've read. Lurker is obsessed with 33, for whatever reason.
-
What do i call it? I call it a feeling amongst registered democrats (assuming the poll was conducted properly) that the wealthy don't 100% deserve the full fruits of their labor. Notice how it wasn't necessary to call them marxists? ::)
Even Robert Nozick (the father of libertarianism) allowed redistribution of wealth by the government if the original distribution was not a just and fair distribution (such as resulting from an original equal distribution). If the father of libertarianism says that it is permissible for the government to redistribute wealth, what does that say about people who claim to follow libertarianism but say that the government has no right whatsoever to redistribute wealth.
Funny - how I have never seen you rail against GE, GS, etc. FAIL
-
That's pretty much true. At least the posts I've read. Lurker is obsessed with 33, for whatever reason.
He must have had a bad experience with Italians in the past.
-
That's pretty much true. At least the posts I've read. Lurker is obsessed with 33, for whatever reason.
Sorry that unlike you, I can't stomach bullshit, lies and nonstop crying on a 24/7 basis from a sissy. It's like the little fat kid in school that cries during the dodgeball game. If he wants to cry, then give him a reason to cry about.
-
Funny - how I have never seen you rail against GE, GS, etc. FAIL
that has nothing to do with anything I said. It looks like this thread is turning into name calling between 3333 and lurker, so I guess I won't get a serious reply.
-
He must have had a bad experience with Italians in the past.
Italians, no.
Crytalians are like annoying little gnats.
-
If the father of libertarianism says that it is permissible for the government to redistribute wealth, what does that say about people who claim to follow libertarianism but say that the government has no right whatsoever to redistribute wealth.
That they are hypocrites. Which as everyone knows the irony of hypocrites is that they can't see it.
-
Sorry that unlike you, I can't stomach bullshit, lies and nonstop crying on a 24/7 basis from a sissy. It's like the little fat kid in school that cries during the dodgeball game. If he wants to cry, then give him a reason to cry about.
You do realize that most of what you post on the board is directed to 33, or some kind of attack on him? (The one's I've read.) I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, and maybe you enjoy it, but it doesn't look very good IMO.
-
You do realize that most of what you post on the board is directed to 33, or some kind of attack on him? (The one's I've read.) I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, and maybe you enjoy it, but it doesn't look very good IMO.
Personally, when freaks like licker attack me, I consider it that I am on the right track.
-
Personally, when freaks like licker attack me, I consider it that I am on the right track.
A good friend of mine told me that your critics help define you. I agree with this. This isn't directed to Lurker, but you do have to take a look at people criticizing and evaluate their intelligence, their beliefs, intentions, etc.
-
So democrats wants to spread the wealth more than republicans.
Whats the big deal isnt it common knowledge?
-
So democrats wants to spread the wealth more than republicans.
Whats the big deal isnt it common knowledge?
Its one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and ironically, 71% of demos.
-
Its one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and ironically, 71% of demos.
Yep but give it up with the commie bla bla already this isnt the cold war
-
Its one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and ironically, 71% of demos.
marx also advocated a violent revolution
are you saying the founding fathers were marxists? :o
::)
-
marx also advocated a violent revolution
are you saying the founding fathers were marxists? :o
::)
They tried every way possible for years for get the English off their backs before issuing tjhe DOI
-
They tried every way possible for years for get the English off their backs before issuing tjhe DOI
That's irrelevant to showing the inconsistency in your belief. You cannot say that because Marx mentioned a redistribution that everybody who agrees with redistribution is therefore a marxist. Just like because marx mentioned a violent revolution does not mean you can say everybody who supports a violent revolution is therefore a marxist. See how this works?
-
That's irrelevant to showing the inconsistency in your belief. You cannot say that because Marx mentioned a redistribution that everybody who agrees with redistribution is therefore a marxist. Just like because marx mentioned a violent revolution does not mean you can say everybody who supports a violent revolution is therefore a marxist. See how this works?
Bro - get out of the college campus for 5 minutes - you are making a fool of yourself daily by engaging in semantics and non sensical BS 24 7
-
Bro - get out of the college campus for 5 minutes - you are making a fool of yourself daily by engaging in semantics and non sensical BS 24 7
definition: your making me look like a fool in front of all my fellow repubs ;D
-
Bro - get out of the college campus for 5 minutes - you are making a fool of yourself daily by engaging in semantics and non sensical BS 24 7
Bro- you are a lawyer, this is logic. If you really, 100% honestly believe that logic is "semantics" and "non sensical BS", then you do not deserve to be a lawyer and your clients deserve someone better.
Disproving someone's logic is not "non sensical BS." It's simply showing someone (in this case you) to be inconsistent and illogical.
-
are you sure your not the lawyer ;D
-
You do realize that most of what you post on the board is directed to 33, or some kind of attack on him? (The one's I've read.) I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, and maybe you enjoy it, but it doesn't look very good IMO.
Funny how you can post something deeply entrenched in political rhetoric and yet when challenged you can provide facts, evidence or a logical response to why you feel/think that.
You don't have to resort to lying, crying, making up bullshit and running in circles nonstop deflecting simple questions directed at you and your statements.
Unlike Chicken Little that constantly cries about the sky falling. Maybe you can teach him. Perhaps if he could actually supply a bit more evidence and a bit less whining, he wouldn't be getting his ass busted so much.
-
Bro- you are a lawyer, this is logic.
Dude please. That is suspect at best. Can you imagine him going before a judge and attempting to present himself in the bullshit way he does on here with his "facts" and "arguments".
Real lawyers are typical not shut in sociopaths.
-
Funny how you can post something deeply entrenched in political rhetoric and yet when challenged you can provide facts, evidence or a logical response to why you feel/think that.
You don't have to resort to lying, crying, making up bullshit and running in circles nonstop deflecting simple questions directed at you and your statements.
Unlike Chicken Little that constantly cries about the sky falling. Maybe you can teach him. Perhaps if he could actually supply a bit more evidence and a bit less whining, he wouldn't be getting his ass busted so much.
Sky is falling.
1. UE skyrocketing
2. Welfare and food stamps skyrocketing
3. Debt exploding
4. Bond Rating in jeopardy
5. Inflation raging
and on and on and on.
-
Sky is falling?
1 - Riots in the streets
2 - Living out a duffle bag
3 - Hundred of thousands of doctors walking off their jobs and quitting
4 - Russian nukes
5 - Obama calling the swat team on granny
6 - fake ass letters about health insurance
FFFFAAAAIIIIILLLLLLL
Run chicken little, run....
-
www.usdebtclock.org
-
ARE Americans practicing Communism?
Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy...
Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it's clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.
Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.
Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!
The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and
an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
.
-
Profile of the Sociopath
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Verbal outbursts and outrage. Inability to form effective communication channels without falling into frustration and self destructive behavior patterns.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Due to complete unhappiness of their own lives. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Paranoid / Incapable of real human interaction and honesty.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. No real or meaningful social life. Often spends majority of time alone out of fear of exposure.
Imaginary or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily. Can never keep their previous stories straight and consistent.
-
::) ::)
Sorry that your advocacy of multiple planks of the commie mainfesto disturbs you so much.
Now go get your shine box you gay piece twinkish piece of communist trash. Some aids riddled homeless bum in the gay bar bathroom awaits you.
-
Gay projection is a bitch isn't it?
Due to complete unhappiness of their own lives.
-
Why don't you all just stop arguing with each other about politics and just give each other handjobs already?
-
Gallup did a poll to where 71% of democrats believe in redistribution of wealth by the govt. What do you call that?
CITE YOUR QUOTE, FUCKTARD!!!
Maybe you're confusing it with the Wall Street Journal poll from earlier this year that showed 81% of AMERICANS were in favor of instituting a millionaire’s surtax
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=373029.0
Personally, I'd be fine going back to the tax brackets we had during the socialist utopia called the Clinton Administration
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/dem-congressman-weve-proved-that-communism-works
>:(
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/dem-congressman-weve-proved-that-communism-works
>:(
will you ever learn to read an entire article before you post it
he was mocking idiots like you who believe Dems are communist (for an example see the title of this thread)
seriously man, you've got to do your own due diligence when you post the latest round of right wing talking points
-
Democrats slouching towards socialism.
Sanders' single-payer bill causing headaches for Dems in 2018 midterms
By Fred Lucas, Fox News
One of the latest hints of support for Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan came not from a liberal enclave like San Francisco or Brooklyn – but from West Virginia’s senior senator, Joe Manchin.
The proposal “should be explored,” Manchin told Bloomberg News earlier this month, while clarifying that the Senate should consider all options and that he’s “skeptical” single payer is the “right solution.”
While the statement from Manchin – whose state overwhelmingly backed President Trump last fall – was cautious, the senator’s willingness to even consider Sanders’ costly health bill shows how the legislation has caused major political complications for Democratic congressional candidates.
Not so long ago, moderate Democrats avoided single payer at all costs. Now, to use the parlance of the left, it has been "normalized." The bill, introduced last week, already has been cast as a litmus test for Democrats eyeing a White House run. And well before 2020, Democratic candidates will face pressure from the liberal flank to get behind the bill in exchange for support in the 2018 midterms.
Manchin – an unlikely ally for single payer, but also one of the most vulnerable Democrats in 2018 – is just one candidate who could find himself torn between the party’s national activist base and his state’s constituents on the proposal, estimated to cost tens of trillions over a decade.
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE: WHAT IS IT?
Other Democratic senators expected to face close races are:
Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana -- all from red states that Trump carried by double digits in the 2016 presidential race.
Democrats also are defending Senate seats in states that Trump won by tighter margins, such as Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Some Democrats facing re-election in Trump states have spoken out publicly on single payer.
Heitkamp said her chief focus is preserving the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is pushing legislation to expand Medicare to people who are 55 and up.
But Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., is all in for Sanders’ bill, tweeting, “I’m proud to announce I’m co-sponsoring @BernieSanders' Medicare for All bill. Sign if you're with me!”
After an impressive showing in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, gained 16 co-sponsors for his legislation. This includes possible 2020 presidential contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Kamala Harris of California.
'Democrats must come clean on whether they back Sanders’ plan for government-run health care, or if they will stand with taxpayers against this unrealistic boondoggle.'
- Katie Martin, NRSC
The liberal MoveOn.org pointed out that Sanders pushed the same bill two years ago with zero supporters. The same group also touted the nod from Sen. Manchin.
“t isn't just liberal Democrats from deep blue states getting on board. Joe Manchin of West Virginia—a state Donald Trump carried by 42 points—says it should be explored as well. Joe Manchin!” the group boasted in a fundraising email.
Republicans seem as gleeful as MoveOn.org, for different reasons.
“Bernie Sanders’ $32 trillion socialist health care plan will force Senate Democrats to choose between liberal activists and common sense,” Katie Martin, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement. “Democrats must come clean on whether they back Sanders’ plan for government-run health care, or if they will stand with taxpayers against this unrealistic boondoggle.”
The cost of ‘free’ health care
The Sanders bill has zero chance of passing in a Republican Congress.
But here’s what it proposes to do:
-Expand Medicare to pay for everyone’s emergency surgery, prescription drugs, mental health and eye care with no co-pay.
-Phase Americans into Medicare, meaning those with employer-plans would get Medicare.
- Allow private companies to be used for elective treatments.
The latest Sanders bill did not come with an official cost estimate.
On Sept. 12, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan fiscal watchdog group, determined the plan would cost $25 trillion over the next decade, basing its estimate on the Sanders campaign proposal. The additional taxes Sanders has talked about would raise $11 trillion in revenue, leaving the remaining $14 trillion added to the national debt, the organization estimates.
The Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, did an analysis of the Sanders campaign plan in May 2016 and determined it would cost $32 trillion over a decade. Further, the institute determined that even after the tax increases, revenue still falls short by $16.6 trillion.
Sanders proposes options that include imposing a 7.5 percent tax hike on employers and raising the top income tax rate to 52 percent for incomes of more than $10 million.
Grace Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a free market health care research group, said the problems with ObamaCare will make it nearly impossible to sell voters on more government in health care. She noted a single-payer plan collapsed in Sanders’ home state of Vermont.
“They may promise you can have everything, but people will no longer believe that,” Turner told Fox News.
Single-payer politics in 2018
When the “skinny repeal” of ObamaCare came up in July, Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., sponsored a single-payer proposal – but only to force Democrats on the record.
It was not exactly popular at the time. Forty-three of 48 Democrats voted present. Voting no were Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester and Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats.
Tester’s campaign said the senator has been clear in his opposition to single payer.
“He’s also made clear that too many Montanans are paying too much for health care, which is why he is fighting to improve the current health care system to lower costs for Montana families,” Tester campaign manager Christie Roberts told Fox News.
Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections rank Missouri, Indiana and West Virginia as tossups. Inside Elections ranks North Dakota as a tossup, while Cook says the race leans Democrat. Both consider Montana to be advantage Democrat.
“Whether or not a Democrat supports Sanders' legislation, this is a party issue, meaning that a Democrat is likely to be called out over supporting or opposing the legislation in a primary rather than a general election,” Jennifer Duffy, senior editor for the Cook Political report, told Fox News.
Republicans will likely hold the issue against Baldwin in Wisconsin, said Duffy, who expects other Trump-state Democrats to oppose the legislation.
Seeing an opportunity in these red states, some GOP primaries are quite crowded.
Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley leads the pack of five other Republicans running to challenge McCaskill.
In Indiana, U.S. House members Luke Messer and Todd Rokita are among seven Republicans hoping to challenge Donnelly in November 2018.
North Dakota state Sen. Tom Campbell appears the likely Republican opponent for Heitkamp.
Manchin’s likely Republican challenger is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey, but others are considering a run.
Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections still consider Trump states Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to be likely or leaning Democrat in the 2018 Senate races.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/21/sanders-single-payer-bill-causing-headaches-for-dems-in-2018-midterms.html
-
Dem generation gap widens
The Hill ^ | 07/02/18 | Scott Wong
Posted on 7/2/2018, 9:41:53 AM by yesthatjallen
Some septuagenarian House Democrats have a message for their younger colleagues clamoring for a spot at the leadership table: Age ain’t nothin’ but a number.
Democrats in their 70s have started pushing back against some of the more youthful members of the Democratic Caucus who are making noise about launching leadership bids in the wake of Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley’s stunning primary loss last week to 28-year-old Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York.
Older lawmakers argue that just because Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), 78, and her top lieutenants are getting up there in years doesn’t mean they’re not progressive or effective. Instead, they say it’s their decades of experience fighting in the trenches on a range of issues — from the gender pay gap and gun control to LGBT rights — that make them the right ones to lead the fight against President Trump and the Republicans.
“If we get back the House, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be the speaker,” said Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), a Pelosi ally. “She is leading this effort to get these candidates elected. She is barnstorming the country. She is helping to fashion the message.”
Frankel, who turned 70 in May, noted that septuagenarians of all stripes are some of the most popular politicians in the country today: former Vice President Joe Biden, 75; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 76; and President Trump, who is 72.
“This should not be a generational fight at all,” Frankel added. “And people who want to make it into a generational fight are, quite frankly, people who don’t like seniority because they want power.”
ETC...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
July 2, 2018
Time to Put the Democratic Party on Suicide Watch?
By Selwyn Duke
There perhaps has never been a time when the Democrats did a better job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. After being well ahead in the generic congressional polls, those numbers collapsed early this year along with the Trump/Russia/Collusion narrative. Since then, leftists have been flailing around desperately searching for an issue.
The first act was stripping Second Amendment rights after the Parkland mass shooting, starring soy boy Camera Hogg; Democrats, infamous for short, childlike memories, obviously forgot that this issue might have cost Al Gore the 2000 election. And gun grabbing doesn’t poll any better today. The second act is the treatment of those invading our country (a.k.a. illegal migrants), starring a hapless little Honduran girl used as a human prop by Time magazine (never mind that her father has a good job back home as a boat captain). Now, related to this, Democrats have a new issue: abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
A week ago this was recognized as a fringe idea even among staunch Democrats, the fringiest fringe around, but then something happened: One Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shocked the Democrat establishment by defeating the favored 20-year incumbent, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), in last Tuesday’s Democrat primary in New York’s 14th district. She ran, in part, on abolishing ICE, so now this has become the “[n]ew rallying call for 2020 Democrats,” as the AP put it.
Now, I really shouldn’t say this — I mean, I really shouldn’t. I want nothing more than for the Democrats to continue marching toward their cliff, but, alas, honest commentary is my bag. And here’s reality: If you leftists think avowed socialist Cortez’s win had mainly to do with abolishing ICE, you’re putting your electoral chances on ice. Cortez won, largely, for a simple reason.
Bigotry.
She had the right profile: a young, female, Hispanic in a district 70 percent non-white — a figure no doubt even higher among its Democrat electorate — and in which the incumbent was a wizened old white fellow (Crowley is 56 and looks 66). It helped that she’s attractive and articulate, but she shamelessly played the group-identity card, too, sending a message that no one should vote for an old white male. She even retweeted the picture of an attorney who expressed the sentiment that “all white people are racist.”
The Washington Post pointed this phenomenon out, by the way, running a Wednesday article titled “The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate.” The paper writes, “Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates.”
Is this a surprise? I wrote years ago about what I dubbed “Cultural affirmative action”; this is the phenomenon whereby people will, often unconsciously, show preference for or advantage members of so-called “victim groups” simply because of their association with those groups. Cultural affirmative action is especially intense among the Democrat electorate, which comprises many who wish to virtue signal and buttress their own self-image by bearing the new “white man’s burden.”
That is, when they are white. Much of that electorate is non-white and Hispanic. Regardless, anti-white bigotry is intense among Democrats, which is why you hear about mythical “white privilege” and the alleged evils of our white ancestors. And if the Left hates that today’s civilization has been shaped by “dead white males,” it’s easy to understand why they wouldn’t want tomorrow’s to be shaped by live ones.
I expounded upon this phenomenon years ago, mind you. When ex-North Carolina senator John Edwards was running against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat nomination, I pointed out that there simply was no way the Democrat electorate was going to choose a white man over a woman and a “black” guy. He was wasting his time. And, sure enough, a subsequent poll of all Americans (not just Democrats) bore this out, showing that while Obama’s race made six percent of Americans less likely to vote for him, it made nine percent more likely to do so.
(By the way, this is why you, Governor Andy Cuomo, and you, Little Big Gulp — a.k.a. soda-warrior Michael Bloomberg — have no chance of capturing the 2020 Democrat nomination. Zero, zilch, nada. You’re being hoisted on your own petards, as your grand political ambitions will be devoured by the politically correct monster you helped create. And, yes, I am experiencing laughing-out-loud schadenfreude.)
As for Cortez, she beat Crowley by a whopping 57 to 42 percent; if Democrats suppose that more than a handful of points of this are attributable to her anti-ICE position, I say they’re crazy. Heck, I’d think that many of her constituents, upon hearing about abolishing ICE, would only ask, “But what about the warming climate?” (to quote an Internet commenter who made this quip).
Moreover, the Big Apple represents the rest of America politically the way it does scenery-wise. If you think you can extrapolate what happened there to most political races, well, I have a forested mountain range in Manhattan to sell you.
Democrats likely have an emotional impediment precluding them from being intellectually honest here: They don’t want to come to terms with their own bigotry (liberals aren’t big on self-knowledge). The reality, however, is that Cortez won over low-information voters by exploiting their prejudices.
But, hey, what do I know? I’m just an idiot oblivious to reality — and a white male, too. So by all means, my Democrat friends, please run on a pro-illegal-migration, anti-ICE platform. A 28-year-old big city socialist thinks it’s a great idea.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
There perhaps has never been a time when the Democrats did a better job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. After being well ahead in the generic congressional polls, those numbers collapsed early this year along with the Trump/Russia/Collusion narrative. Since then, leftists have been flailing around desperately searching for an issue.
The first act was stripping Second Amendment rights after the Parkland mass shooting, starring soy boy Camera Hogg; Democrats, infamous for short, childlike memories, obviously forgot that this issue might have cost Al Gore the 2000 election. And gun grabbing doesn’t poll any better today. The second act is the treatment of those invading our country (a.k.a. illegal migrants), starring a hapless little Honduran girl used as a human prop by Time magazine (never mind that her father has a good job back home as a boat captain). Now, related to this, Democrats have a new issue: abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
A week ago this was recognized as a fringe idea even among staunch Democrats, the fringiest fringe around, but then something happened: One Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shocked the Democrat establishment by defeating the favored 20-year incumbent, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), in last Tuesday’s Democrat primary in New York’s 14th district. She ran, in part, on abolishing ICE, so now this has become the “[n]ew rallying call for 2020 Democrats,” as the AP put it.
Now, I really shouldn’t say this — I mean, I really shouldn’t. I want nothing more than for the Democrats to continue marching toward their cliff, but, alas, honest commentary is my bag. And here’s reality: If you leftists think avowed socialist Cortez’s win had mainly to do with abolishing ICE, you’re putting your electoral chances on ice. Cortez won, largely, for a simple reason.
Bigotry.
She had the right profile: a young, female, Hispanic in a district 70 percent non-white — a figure no doubt even higher among its Democrat electorate — and in which the incumbent was a wizened old white fellow (Crowley is 56 and looks 66). It helped that she’s attractive and articulate, but she shamelessly played the group-identity card, too, sending a message that no one should vote for an old white male. She even retweeted the picture of an attorney who expressed the sentiment that “all white people are racist.”
The Washington Post pointed this phenomenon out, by the way, running a Wednesday article titled “The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate.” The paper writes, “Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates.”
Is this a surprise? I wrote years ago about what I dubbed “Cultural affirmative action”; this is the phenomenon whereby people will, often unconsciously, show preference for or advantage members of so-called “victim groups” simply because of their association with those groups. Cultural affirmative action is especially intense among the Democrat electorate, which comprises many who wish to virtue signal and buttress their own self-image by bearing the new “white man’s burden.”
That is, when they are white. Much of that electorate is non-white and Hispanic. Regardless, anti-white bigotry is intense among Democrats, which is why you hear about mythical “white privilege” and the alleged evils of our white ancestors. And if the Left hates that today’s civilization has been shaped by “dead white males,” it’s easy to understand why they wouldn’t want tomorrow’s to be shaped by live ones.
I expounded upon this phenomenon years ago, mind you. When ex-North Carolina senator John Edwards was running against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat nomination, I pointed out that there simply was no way the Democrat electorate was going to choose a white man over a woman and a “black” guy. He was wasting his time. And, sure enough, a subsequent poll of all Americans (not just Democrats) bore this out, showing that while Obama’s race made six percent of Americans less likely to vote for him, it made nine percent more likely to do so.
(By the way, this is why you, Governor Andy Cuomo, and you, Little Big Gulp — a.k.a. soda-warrior Michael Bloomberg — have no chance of capturing the 2020 Democrat nomination. Zero, zilch, nada. You’re being hoisted on your own petards, as your grand political ambitions will be devoured by the politically correct monster you helped create. And, yes, I am experiencing laughing-out-loud schadenfreude.)
As for Cortez, she beat Crowley by a whopping 57 to 42 percent; if Democrats suppose that more than a handful of points of this are attributable to her anti-ICE position, I say they’re crazy. Heck, I’d think that many of her constituents, upon hearing about abolishing ICE, would only ask, “But what about the warming climate?” (to quote an Internet commenter who made this quip).
Moreover, the Big Apple represents the rest of America politically the way it does scenery-wise. If you think you can extrapolate what happened there to most political races, well, I have a forested mountain range in Manhattan to sell you.
Democrats likely have an emotional impediment precluding them from being intellectually honest here: They don’t want to come to terms with their own bigotry (liberals aren’t big on self-knowledge). The reality, however, is that Cortez won over low-information voters by exploiting their prejudices.
But, hey, what do I know? I’m just an idiot oblivious to reality — and a white male, too. So by all means, my Democrat friends, please run on a pro-illegal-migration, anti-ICE platform. A 28-year-old big city socialist thinks it’s a great idea.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/time_to_put_the_democratic_party_on_suicide_watch.html#ixzz5K6hQCwes
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/29/charles_hurt_new_generation_of_democrats_are_communists.html
Exactly
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/29/charles_hurt_new_generation_of_democrats_are_communists.html
Exactly
Trump's friendly relationship with NK and Russia are influencing young folks now to go commie. Go figure .
-
Trump's friendly relationship with NK and Russia are influencing young folks now to go commie. Go figure .
::)
-
Breaking news :
Reagan spinning in his grave, Ike may start soon . ;)
Trump is a more conservative president so far than either.
-
???? Ok, do you think he's a better POTUS then Reagan or IKE ?
He is on track to be
-
35 yrs ago I was on track to be a pro bodybuilder and stay married to my 1st wife.
How'd that work out... ;D
35 years ago Trump was a multi-millionaire married to a model. Today he's a multi-billionaire married to model and happens to also be POTUS.
Another guy on here comparing his life to Trump's like it matters. Only ends in sadness.
-
Socialist candidates the 'future of our party,' says DNC Chairman Tom Perez...
Washington Examiner ^ | July 03, 2018 11:39 AM | by Anna Giaritelli
Posted on 7/3/2018, 11:55:46 AM by caww
The chairman of the Democratic National Party, Tom Perez, on Tuesday said socialist political candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the "future" of the party.
Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described "democratic socialist" who defeated a top House Democrat in a recent primary election, symbolizes where the party is headed.
The Obama-era Cabinet official said Ocasio-Cortez and Ben Jealous, a socialist running for governor in Maryland, are examples of "spectacular" candidates the party believes represents its future.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-democratic-socialists-getting-started-20180702-story.html
Natural progression.
-
The fact you took my self-deprecating silly joke post serious... PROVES you're an idiot.
The only sad thing here is your lack of cognitive ability :D
I get that you were trying for that...but sorry to say your joke posts and legit posts on politics are about the same level of humor for the reader.
Trump(granted, so far) is ahead of schedule in fulfilling his campaign promises compared to where the previous two POTUS mentioned were. You threw in a "joke" about yourself that wasn't relevant or necessary or most of all funny.
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-democratic-socialists-getting-started-20180702-story.html
Natural progression.
It's all there in the writings of Marx and Engels. Society "progresses" thusly: fuedalism, capitalism, socialism, then communism. The marxists want to skip capitalism and go straight to communism - see Cuba and Venezuela today, and consider Cambodia and N. Vietnam from the past.
Progressives are just staying true to their game plan.